Schwartz, a fraud?

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Colin

It really is worth taking the trouble to read through the thread though!

Dave

[Bridewell]

Hi Dave,

This thread has got a few cobwebs on it, although I confess to not having read much of it. I was just wondering, if Liz Stride is under attack, whether by her eventual murderer or by another why, when she sees an obviously Jewish man approaching, does she not cry out to him in Yiddish? (But perhaps she did).
Speculation: She called to him for help and he ran away. He then invented Pipeman to justify having done so.
(That should lure a few people across, if only to shoot me down in flames!)

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

I thought, bearing in mind the minor contretemps elsewhere regarding the Schwartz testimony, that this might be a more appropriate place to raise the matter...hence the resurrection of this ancient thread, which contains much of interest...

One aspect I immediately discount is speculation about left or right-handedness based on the pinning of the flower and backing on Liz Strides right side...British custom is that gentlemen always wear a "buttonhole" on the left (in fact suits always used to come ready-made with a slot in the left lapel - some still do) whilst ladies always wear a corsage on the right...

However, that aside, herewith the venue, or am I sadistic necrophiliac with equine bestial tendencies?

Dave

[Scott Nelson]

What a crazy thread. And I don't mean the title.

[Errata]

I'm not so sure about the “Jew on stage factor“ which Errata's suggesting, but in my understanding “theatrical appearance“ might have meant everything from overdressed (which supposedly Schwartz is supposed to have been), to exaggerated speak and gestures, which also kind of fits with Schwartz's not a little convoluted and unstable testimony.

It was just an idea. A possible explanation for a mysterious sentence. I'm not wedded to it. Personally, the more I think about it, the more I am in favor of the idea that the reporter never even laid eyes on the guy. But that's just me.

[Observer]

Oberservations????? hahaha. I'll blame the jungle juice.

The wikipedia article explains the term "taking the Micheal" as I intended it to be understood

Oberserver

[Chris]

Yes, that's what I meant – if I knew what “taking the Michael“ means in British English. (I guess it means getting annoyed?)

I think this Wikipedia article gives a reasonable idea (I'd have said it could mean either taking a liberty or making fun of somebody):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_the_piss

[mariab]

Yes, that's what I meant – if I knew what “taking the Michael“ means in British English. (I guess it means getting annoyed?)

[Observer]

No harm at all. I think Mariab comes the closest in suggesting that the reporter was taking the Michael regarding Schwartz's dramatic rendition of his oberservations on the morning in question. Thus his sarcastic quip in describing his as being in the theatrical profession.

[Chris]

The fact is we're talking about one little reporter from The Star newspaper here. With a crack of his whip he descibes Schwartz as "of theatrical appearance" and 122 years later a whole bunch of you go primate waste actually believing that Schwartz might well have been employed in the theatrical trade. He was a trouser presser. I would advise taking the reporters description of Schwartz with a pinch of salt.

Yes, as I've said, I think Israel Schwartz the tailor's presser is most likely to be the witness. After all, he appears to be the only Israel Schwartz in the whole of England and Wales in 1891, and there he is living just a couple of blocks from the scene of the murder.

So I do take what the newspaper says about him appearing to be "in the theatrical line," and being Hungarian, with a pinch of salt. But at the same time, there's no harm in trying to make some kind of sense of what the Star report said.

[Observer]

The fact is we're talking about one little reporter from The Star newspaper here. With a crack of his whip he descibes Schwartz as "of theatrical appearance" and 122 years later a whole bunch of you go primate waste actually believing that Schwartz might well have been employed in the theatrical trade. He was a trouser presser. I would advise taking the reporters description of Schwartz with a pinch of salt. In fact, in my honest opinion, apart from the inquest reports, the newspapers were guilty of speading quite large dollops of nonsense regarding the murders in every direction.

all the best

Observer

[mariab]

I'm not so sure about the “Jew on stage factor“ which Errata's suggesting, but in my understanding “theatrical appearance“ might have meant everything from overdressed (which supposedly Schwartz is supposed to have been), to exaggerated speak and gestures, which also kind of fits with Schwartz's not a little convoluted and unstable testimony.

[Chris]

Hi Maria ,I agree
As does of 'theatrical appearance'

But the reason we're having this discussion is that Errata was suggesting that it didn't mean he looked as though he was an actor, but that he "strongly resembled the Jewish caricatures on stage." Obviously that's different.

[packers stem]

Thank you so much for the link to the Gavin Bromley article, Roy. I've heard people praising this article before. I'll read it later tonight.
To Packer's stem:
Most obviously “being in the theatrical line“ refers to actor.

Hi Maria ,I agree
As does of 'theatrical appearance'

[Chris]

Sorry Chris are you serious.
Which theatre employees are you referring to usher,lighting ,ticket kiosk,ice cream seller,that would be a giveaway in terms of appearance so as to be described as 'being in the theatrical line'

I'm simply pointing out what the phrase "in the theatrical line" means. You may not like it, but I don't know what I can do about that.